Talmud su Levitico 26:39

What is the difference between his Hebrew male and female slaves and his Canaanite male and female slaves? Rebbi Joḥanan said, since he is not empowered to change the employment of his male⁶⁶Lev. 26:39 prohibits to let the male Hebrew slave “work slave’s work”. This is interpreted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 1, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 160, Sifra Behar Pereq7(3) that the slave must be employed in the trade he exercised before being sold. or female⁶⁷Since she is underage, it is a question whether her find belongs to her father or her master. She probably should not have been mentioned in this connection; the use of the singular in the remainder of the sentence is correct, as compared to the plural used in the next sentence. Hebrew slave, that one’s find belongs to himself. Since he is empowered to change the employment of his male or female Canaanite slave, their find belongs to their master. They objected: He is not empowered to change the employment of his wife, but her find belongs to him. As we have stated there: “He forces her to work with wool,⁶⁸Mishnah Ketubot 5:6” he cannot force her to work any other material⁶⁹Cf. Ketubot 5:6, Note 163.. ⁷⁰An expanded version of this discussion is in Ketubot 6:1, Notes 17–21. Rebbi Abba bar Mina and Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is another reason in the case of the wife. What is another reason in the case of the wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because of quarrel⁷¹This is the only reason mentioned in the Babli, 12b, Ketubot40b. The husband should not be angry that he has to pay for all of his wife’s needs but cannot get his hands on her find.. Rebbi Yose said, lest she smuggle away her husband’s property and say: it is a find. They objected: before witnesses^72,If she finds an object before witnesses, there is no reason for R. Yose’s rule. In Ketubot, several similar instances are invoked.⁷³E has a longer text, but shorter than the analogous one in Ketubot, to explain the question:
מַה מַפְקָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. מָצָאת בָּעֵדִים. מָאן דָּמַר מִפְּנֵי הַקְּטָטָה. אֵין כָּאן קְטָטָה. וּמָאן דָּמַר שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא מַבְרַחַת נְכָסִים מִשֶּׁל בַּעֲלָה וְאוֹמֶרֶת מְצִיאָה מָצָאתִי. הָא בָּעֵדִים לֹא אָֽסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה.
What is the difference between them? If she found it in the presence of witnesses. For him who says, because of quarrel, would there not be quarrel? For him who says, lest she smuggle away her husband’s property and say: I found a find, it follows that before witnesses they forbade one because of the other.? They forbade⁷⁴The wife’s find is handed over to the husband even in cases where it was not necessary.
The use of “forbade” seems inadequate here; one would expect “decreed” or “instituted” the rule. In Ketubot, no verb is mentioned in this sentence. R. Yose holds that the worst case has to be presumed in all situations since detailed investigation probably is impossible. one because of the other⁷⁴The wife’s find is handed over to the husband even in cases where it was not necessary.
The use of “forbade” seems inadequate here; one would expect “decreed” or “instituted” the rule. In Ketubot, no verb is mentioned in this sentence. R. Yose holds that the worst case has to be presumed in all situations since detailed investigation probably is impossible..